Gong Sau Extravaganza 2013: Sirc vs. 3moose

[Matt Phillips]

Epistemic self-refutation, more properly called "self-defeat," is what happens when a proposition is such that it cannot possibly be known (or in more extreme cases, cannot even have any evidence in its favor). Any obviously self-defeating proposition is the claim "There can be no knowledge." This claim could, in principle, be true, but if it were, we could never know that it was, for obvious reasons.

Again, the philosophically more interesting cases of this tend to be ones where a view has as an unintended consequence that if it were correct, then we could not know that it was correct. This doesn't show that the view is wrong, but obviously, it isn't a great feature for a view to have. Of course, people who endorse extreme forms of skepticism (views that hold that we have little or no knowledge or even little or no justified belief) tend not to mind when it is pointed out that their views are self-defeating.

"Epistemic" just means "relating to knowledge (or understanding)."

OK. I'm done. Now, who is Sirc gonna wrist-lock next?

The second they set up a cull for this, I respond. I'm not derailing the whole thread so that we two can hash this out technically.

How about you produce the quotes you were asked for instead of jerking off.

[Rivington]

You may have a PhD in Philosophy, but you can't read for ****. Maybe something about the glowing screen? I never asked Admin for clearance on any Portuguese anything. Read it again, and then STFU for real this time.

Indeed, you had some other idiot term up there, and that was the one you got Special Punchbowl Monitor Approval from. But that's definitely worth having an extensive argument about. "Ha ha on you, it wasn't my dumb Portuguese, it was my stupid Japanese!"

[Matt Phillips]

Indeed, you had some other idiot term up there, and that was the one you got Special Punchbowl Monitor Approval from. But that's definitely worth having an extensive argument about. "Ha ha on you, it wasn't my dumb Portuguese, it was my stupid Japanese!"

You can't read either, that was in English.

[alex]

LOL other than a few very relevant times it came up here, how often have I mentioned it in say the last 20 months since we had our little post-mortem on the GS?

Put your money where your mouth is and make your opinion refutable. Pick a Bully (or better yet, and independent grappling instructor) and I'll go get my level evaluated. Hell, I'll even video tape it.

I haven't been in serious training in almost a year, but I'll still make it damn apparent to whomever that I put my time in on the mat to get where I should have been to fight Josh.

I am not butt hurt, angry or anything of the sort. What I am is unafraid to be seen exactly as I really am. That puts me well ahead of many. many people posting here. Yourself NOT included.

haha quite right. srry if i came across as a bit harsh im in a bad mood, i chipped my tooth sparring this morning (forgot to put my mouthguard in until i got a nice solid uppercut... duh)

i would just hate to see anyone go down rudys path. and im not sure what you meant about your gf... is she really hideous or something so much that you cant bear to look at her more than once a month? :p

[Rivington]

You can't read either, that was in English.

Aw, you're so eager for silly arguments. Clearly, I can read, as I can write and you responded to my actual written English words. See, anyone can play the silly argument game. You can even call NAGA NO KATANA English if you like, but that doesn't keep it from also being an "idiot term" and your "stupid Japanese"—its value as a pun depends on Japanese after all—I correctly described it.

[ChuckWepner]

Indeed, you had some other idiot term up there, and that was the one you got Special Punchbowl Monitor Approval from. But that's definitely worth having an extensive argument about. "Ha ha on you, it wasn't my dumb Portuguese, it was my stupid Japanese!"

Thank you for narrowing down the sophistical handwaving of the moment. When someone's honesty is as flexible as Mr. Phillips's it is hard to keep track. He keeps saying I called him a liar, too, which I haven't. Also, he doesn't know the difference between disinterested and uninterested.

[Matt Phillips]

Epistemic self-refutation, more properly called "self-defeat," is what happens when a proposition is such that it cannot possibly be known (or in more extreme cases, cannot even have any evidence in its favor). Any obviously self-defeating proposition is the claim "There can be no knowledge." This claim could, in principle, be true, but if it were, we could never know that it was, for obvious reasons.

And "There exists no true proposition"..? Could that be true under any consistent Logistic framework?

That is a self-refuting proposition, but not an epistemically self-refuting one. You're whole argument is just a kindergarten Strawman/bait-and-switch. Propositions can also be self-refuting for formal or semantic reasons, and not fall into the category you're harping on at all. As you well know.

[Sri Hanuman]

^^^

[Matt Phillips]

Thank you for narrowing down the sophistical handwaving of the moment. When someone's honesty is as flexible as Mr. Phillips's it is hard to keep track. He keeps saying I called him a liar, too, which I haven't. Also, he doesn't know the difference between disinterested and uninterested.

Would you care to nuance the difference between "Dishonest" and "A liar"? You just called my honesty "flexible" in this very post.

[It is Fake]

Before it is suggested, no, this is not my doppelganger. Too sophisticated and analytical even for me.